Hi Oliver, Thank you for confirming! I've moved the draft from AUTH to EDIT.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 8:41 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I do agree with Russ's statement. > > Cheers, > > Oliver > > On 1/12/26 3:25 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Oliver and Russ, >> Thank you for your replies. >> Oliver - Since Russ recommended that the sourcecode in Section 6 should not >> be marked with a type, do you agree? Once I know that, I can move the draft >> from AUTH to EDIT and continue processing it as normal. >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >>> On Jan 12, 2026, at 7:08 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> Given Russ's response below, are there any other open points you need >>> answered (I see the document is stil in AUTH state)? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Oliver >>> >>> On 1/8/26 6:35 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>> Oliver: >>>> Section 6 contains an incomplete example. I do not think it should be >>>> mareked with a sourcecode type. >>>> Russ >>>>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>> >>>>> On 1/8/26 4:16 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>>> Thank you for asking for clarification. >>>>>> There are still sourcecode elements in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 >>>>>> that are marked sourcecode type="csv", and there is a sourcecode element >>>>>> in Section 6 that doesn't have a specified type. >>>>>> While it's totally fine to not always specify the type, the type "csv" >>>>>> is not currently in our list of sourcecode types: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types >>>>>> If "csv" is the correct type, please let us know so we can add it to our >>>>>> list. Also, please let us know if there is a preferred type for the >>>>>> sourcecode in Section 6. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, "csv" is the correct type. >>>>> >>>>> @Russ: Should there be a specific type for the source code in Section 6 >>>>> (the RPKI signature example)? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Oliver >>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 9:02 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Sarah: Does Russ's response answer your remaining questions? I don't >>>>>>> think we have any other source code in the document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oliver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/7/26 6:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>>>>>> Sarah: >>>>>>>> I compiled the ASN.1 module with no errors. >>>>>>>> Russ >>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 12:41 PM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My apologies for not including this in the intake form, but I have >>>>>>>>> some additional questions about the sourcecode in the XML file: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>>>>>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references >>>>>>>>> and/or text in the Security Considerations section. Is this >>>>>>>>> information correct? >>>>>>>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>>>>>>> types: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>>>>>>>> Note that one sourcecode element in the XML does not have a specified >>>>>>>>> type. >>>>>>>>> * Regarding the sourcecode types, "csv" is not included in the list >>>>>>>>> of acceptable types. Are you requesting that we ask for it to be >>>>>>>>> added to the list? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 5:51 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sarah, all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delay, I'm back from my time off now. Responses to >>>>>>>>>>> questions are inline. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oliver >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/25 6:10 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Randy, >>>>>>>>>>>> Sending in response to your question: >>>>>>>>>>>>> hmmm. both russ and i said ok to the iana reg change. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so could you whack me with a clue bat with exactly what you await? >>>>>>>>>>>> We are looking out for the authors' responses to the Intake Form, >>>>>>>>>>>> included here: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Author(s), >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor queue! >>>>>>>>>>>>> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to >>>>>>>>>>>>> working with you >>>>>>>>>>>>> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> processing time >>>>>>>>>>>>> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions >>>>>>>>>>>>> below. Please confer >>>>>>>>>>>>> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your >>>>>>>>>>>>> document is in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>> streamline communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to this >>>>>>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As you read through the rest of this email: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage >>>>>>>>>>>>> you to make those >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy >>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of diffs, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ADs, doc shepherds). >>>>>>>>>>>>> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please >>>>>>>>>>>>> reply with any >>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable rationale/comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document >>>>>>>>>>>>> until we hear from you >>>>>>>>>>>>> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we >>>>>>>>>>>>> receive a reply). Even >>>>>>>>>>>>> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make >>>>>>>>>>>>> any updates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your >>>>>>>>>>>>> document will start >>>>>>>>>>>>> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve >>>>>>>>>>>>> our updates >>>>>>>>>>>>> during AUTH48. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>>>>> The RPC Team >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document >>>>>>>>>>>>> during Last Call, >>>>>>>>>>>>> please review the current version of the document: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>>>>>>>>>>> sections current? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with >>>>>>>>>>>>> editing your >>>>>>>>>>>>> document. For example: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another >>>>>>>>>>>>> document? >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this >>>>>>>>>>>>> document's >>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This document is related to RFC8805 and RFC9632. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., field names >>>>>>>>>>>>> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in >>>>>>>>>>>>> double quotes; >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We write the term "prefixlen" in all lower case throughout the >>>>>>>>>>> document, with the exception of the "Prefixlen" keyword as part of >>>>>>>>>>> the "remarks:" field. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless >>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> hear otherwise at this time: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>>>>>>>>>>>> (RFC Style Guide). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>>>>>>>>>>>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with your document and reporting any issues to them.>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, are >>>>>>>>>>>>> there any sections that were contentious when the document was >>>>>>>>>>>>> drafted? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >>>>>>>>>>>>> editing this >>>>>>>>>>>>> document? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>>>>>>>>>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>>>>>>>>>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I hope so. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for >>>>>>>>>>>>> editing in kramdown-rfc? >>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained >>>>>>>>>>>>> kramdown-rfc file. For more >>>>>>>>>>>>> information about this experiment, see: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mornin'sarah, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need answers to the Intake Form before proceeding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this draft. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i am leaving that to the primary author, oliver. i just stuck my >>>>>>>>>>>>> nose >>>>>>>>>>>>> in to smooth a process gl!tch. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> randy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
